Although teacher questioning has received much attention in the past few years, studies on teacher questions in the ESL classroom have so far revolved around the ‘closed’/‘open’ or ‘display’/‘referential’ distinction. Findings from classroom observations show excessive use of closed questions by teachers in the classroom. The argument that has been more or less accepted is that such questions seek to elicit short, restricted student responses and are therefore purposeless in the classroom setting. This paper attempts to conduct an analytical discussion of the argument. The questions of three non-native ESL teachers during reading comprehension in the upper secondary school in Brunei are analysed using a three-level question construct. Through this three-level question analysis, it is possible to challenge the argument concerning question types and purposes. Particularly, it illustrates (i) the problem of assigning teacher questions into narrowly defined categories and (ii) that questions asked by teachers in the language classroom are purposeful when reflected against the goals and agenda of the educational institution.
WHILE recent articles and research studies on Singapore Colloquial English (SCE, or simply ‘Singlish’) have so far tended to focus on the structure, grammar and the functional roles of Singlish in Singapore, this paper presents an insider's viewpoint of this local variety from a perspective that incorporates both linguistic ideology and cultural politics. Focusing on the spoken version at the basilectal end of the English speech continuum, the article attempts to explore Singlish from a cultural-political viewpoint and challenges popular belief that Singlish encapsulates an established Singapore identity. In the process, it throws up some insights about language, identity and culture. Based on two significant contributing factors to the unmarked use of Singlish in Singapore, the paper argues that – more than just a language used for wider intra-communication in this tiny republic and city state – this variety, with its odd mix of English and local ethnic languages, mirrors a people who find themselves struggling with a myriad conflicting and contrasting cultures, a people in cultural and linguistic flux, who are still searching – desperately – for an identity, and a language they can call their own.
This paper explores the possibility of expanding the focus group interview into the field of English as a Second Language (ESL), where this research methodology is yet to be thoroughly explored. Specifically, it aims to challenge popular criticisms about the reliability and validity of the focus group as a qualitative research methodology. It does this by first setting up a list of five main criticisms of the focus group interview drawn from current literature on research methodology within the social sciences and education. Based on transcripts of interactional data gathered from focus group interviews carried out among ESL students in a formal ESL context, it then provides a direct and detailed response to each criticism. The arguments put forward demonstrate that the focus group interview, as a method of data collection, may be particularly relevant in gathering the viewpoints and opinions of participants who have traditionally not been well represented through the more conventional and common methods currently employed in ESL research studies. Furthermore, the paper raises conscious awareness about the potential of the focus group as a viable and verifiable tool in qualitative research methodology.
■ The Systemic Textual Analysis (STA) is a text-based approach to teaching writing based on a combination of the genre-based theory and systemic functional linguistics. Central to this approach is the teacher-learner collaborative analysis of various text types in terms of structure and texture through the use of genre analysis and systemic functional grammar. The critical question posed in this paper is: To what extent does STA help ESL learners become proficient writers? In other words, how can helping students analyse the macro and micro elements of a text help them improve the overall structure and texture of their own writing? This paper attempts to address this question and compares the pre- and post-instruction pieces of review writing produced by an ESL undergraduate in the English class. Using STA as an instruction method, the paper discusses the extent to which progress has been made in the student’s post-instruction text in terms of structure and texture and also the implications of such an approach for further language teaching and learning directions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.